Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Oh. Great. A sample gallery for a sharp and decent portrait lens. With no portraits. Avoid the obvious, because that's already covered be thousand other sample pictures. Clever move.
I know how you think about portraits, but then why not giving lens and camera to somebody who likes taking pictures from people?
It's like testing a sportscar and show how it can be parked.
Posts: 8,026
Threads: 1,859
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
02-12-2017, 02:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2017, 02:21 AM by Klaus.)
Seriously - what does a portrait tell about a lens which is not visible in those shots ?
Posts: 8,026
Threads: 1,859
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
For your pleasure I will add a portrait shot ... sort of.
Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
I notice you said, sharp and decent portrait lens, and not, a decently sharp portrait lens?
I am not criticizing your wording. I just wonder if what you mean is that you are not convinced that it is an exceptional portrait lens? I am still struggling, in all seriousness, with something that I have heard. Namely, that the Sigma lenses appear better than they are because they test well, due to easily measurable sharpness. But somehow lack in this thing called "micro contrast". I'm not exactly sure what micro contrast is, or why it can't or just isn't tested for. Or is it just some buzzword that people use to justify their non-Sigma lenses?